05 November 2017 2:17 AM

PETER HITCHENS: What will women gain from all this squawking about sex pests? A niqab

This is Peter Hitchens's Mail on Sunday column

Behold my proposed new autumn look for women in politics. The black, I think, is flattering and it radiates an air of cool unapproachability. No Minister would put his hand on the knee of anyone dressed like this; indeed, he’d have trouble finding her knee, or anything else

Well, isn’t this what you want, all you squawking flapping denouncers of groping men and ‘inappropriate’ jokes?

You have lots in common with Militant Islamists on this subject. They, too, believe that all men must be assumed to be slavering predators.

And these beliefs lie behind the severe dress codes and sexual segregation which modern liberals claim to find so shocking about Islam.

Yet on this, it turns out that you agree with them. Any male action, any form of words you choose to disapprove of can and will be presumed to be guilty because, well, men are like that. The culprit will be ruined for ever.

Are you all off your heads? Do you have no sense of proportion?

The country is in the midst of its biggest constitutional crisis for a century, and wobbling on the precipice of bankruptcy.

The welfare system is about to melt down. And you think the most important thing in your lives is a hunt for long-ago cases of wandering hands, or tellers of coarse jokes? Yes, you do.

You have lost all touch with reality, and future generations will laugh at you. Alas, you are in charge now.

Take this, for example: Michael Fallon was one of the worst Defence Secretaries in history.

The Army is a skeleton, the Navy dead in the water, largely motionless and stripped of its most basic capacities.

The former head of the Navy, Lord West, is reduced to writing to the newspapers to try to point out the dangers, because nobody will listen.

But was Mr Fallon made to quit over that? No. Neither the political class nor their pals in the media class care about such things. He was driven from office because he is alleged not to be safe in mixed company.

In a way, this is very old-fashioned. Personally, I am a Victorian prude, though I try to keep it under control. I am still secretly shocked by coarse words, especially used in front of women or children.

I am dismayed to see on public display, on TV and in the street, and in normal conversation, things and events which would once only have been available to shamefully seedy men in shady back-street shops. I don’t want to watch other people having sex.

I also experienced the 1960s and their aftermath, and saw the dreadful, often tragic things that happen when men and women abandon the old rules of fidelity and constancy, and wrongly imagine that total freedom leads to total happiness.

Since then, I haven’t been able to see why the wonderful new equality between men and women, which is one of the great changes for the better in our age, had to be mixed up with the militant destruction of marriage and the traditional family. I still don’t.

But many of those who claim to seek female equality have another, much fiercer objective. They actually see men as the enemy, the ‘patriarchy’, to be overthrown by all means necessary, and replaced by a feminised society. They also see marriage as a machine for oppressing women. Their objectives moved a lot closer last week.

This is why many of those who said they wanted equality also sneered at restraint and manners. They claim now that they want the restraint and the manners back (though the suspicion lingers that much of the current fuss is aimed mainly at making all men look wicked and grubby).

But where are such restrained manners to come from in our liberated society? They were part of an elaborate code of courtship and respect which was learned by example in the married family, and has now completely vanished. In our post-marriage free-for-all, why should we expect either sex to be restrained? All that’s left is the police or the public pillory of Twitter.

It was that old code which allowed us, unlike the Islamic world, to permit the happy mixing of men and women without black shrouds, veils and ‘no-touching’ rules so strict that they even rule out a male-female handshake.

Now it’s gone, what are we to do instead? I am angered by the public denunciations now taking place, not because I believe or disbelieve them (how can we know?) but because they make trust impossible.

Andrea Leadsom, whose own bid for the Tory leadership was destroyed by what I still think was the unfair twisting of her words, should know better than to engage in such things.

Wise men at Westminster will in future go about with chaperones, record and film all conversations with the opposite sex, require women to sign consent forms before meeting them, and certificates of good conduct afterwards. Nothing else will keep them safe from claims that they momentarily applied ‘a fleeting hand’ to someone’s knee.

Or there is always the other solution, the niqab, the burka and the segregation of the sexes. But sanity, the best remedy of all, is obviously unlikely to return any time in the near future.

There are REAL laws against smoking... maybe that's why kids switch to drugs

In secondary schools, illegal drug abuse is now more common than cigarette-smoking. Could this have something to do with the fact that the police (busy painting their nails) long ago stopped enforcing the law against drug possession?

And could it be connected with the generally defeatist ‘they’ll do it anyway’ attitude of schools and the media towards drugs?

By contrast, the Government tries quite hard to discourage cigarette-smoking, and uses the law to ban it in many public places.

Meanwhile, more bad news for the ‘marijuana makes you nice and peaceful’ lobby. The disgusting, callous killer Ryan Gibbons, who twice ran over ex-Naval officer Mike Samwell with his own car in front of his wife, was revealed in his trial to be a cannabis user.

Eventually the facts may just undermine the billionaire PR campaign being run to portray this nasty drug as safe and good.

On a former council estate in the Thames Valley, I saw this rather desperate little poster stuck to a front door, and wondered what tale of persecution and plain fear, at the hands of callous youths, lay behind it.

Is it too late to stop the encouragement of the American Halloween in this country? For many it is a night of misery.

If you want to comment on Peter Hitchens, click on Comments and scroll down

Alan Thomas
"Without the internet, we wouldn't be able to exchange thoughts."
Once we had film classification. We couldn't go to over 18 films..
Liberals in government have moved from protecting young from adult content, to actively seeking to push it at them
That's not progress.
I see it as a failure and damaging for society.
I've just read that a young boy was influenced to kill after watching Pulp Fiction.
I grew up free from that kind of violence at an impressionable age.
The lines between adult and child are now blurred.
It's having consequences. Bad ones.
Sensible voices have been unheeded.
I woukd have liked the internet to voice my adult opinion earlier. More voices may have halted the decline perhaps.

Thanks for your reply. Now I understand your point more clearly, I'm almost in agreement, certainly in terms of today's reliance on the almost total use of computers in education - too many distractions available when attention is at a low ebb.

However, technology is the way of the world, and any child leaving education without basic computer skills faces low job prospects. I was around 70 when I first found my way into the internet - and I'm still somewhat in love with Google Maps.

Education is the principle motive of change, having surpassed that of survival itself in the (not so now) 'comfortable' West..
What makes you think 'education' will do anything but compound, and further confound, the human condition?

Elaine Quraishi , John Vernau .
Further to Mr Vernaus reference to shouting abuse at footballers etc , a Scottish goalkeeper called Andy Goram , was diagnosed as Bi Polar this was public knowledge and although football chants can often be offensive , many are not , as a gesture of support his own teams supporters started a chant , based on an existing chant , of " Two Andy Gorams , Theres only two Andy Gorams" , this is sung to the tune of the song "Guantanamera"
Which I think is quite witty .
Shouting relatively harmless abuse at sportsmen , politicians , hypocritical tax avoiders , whoever , can often be a harmless safety valve for the ordinary working person .

I dont believe it will change yet. It feels as though there is a huge disconnect from us in Parliament and Lords. Our interests as voters are less important. can only watch as they fight to seemingle keep creating problems for ordinary females by their projects. It's the naivety. Sort of forgive them, they know what they do, which is scary and frustrating and frightening..

I can't see enough realisation, about what has been unleashed on children. I guess many who do promote exposing, then educating to it aren't old enough to have comparison of times when the young were unadulterated by how I see they are today.
It's all liberty and a lot of greed and self interest.
Mental health issues are at an all time high. This Christmas parents will get in debt as younger and younger children are given the presents to access the new virtual community, that has no rules, no boundaries, following on from the lessening of them in the real world.
It's a good question who indeed, I've not got much confidence at the moment. I don't know. is the answer, sadly.

Personally, I find this entire witch hunt absolutely revolting. I find the way the allegations seem to be being handled in a prejudicial way as if everyone is guilty rather than innocent until proven guilty. The media as usual when it's something to do with feminism and PC nonsense, jump all over it, repeating (seemingly with glee) the headlines over and over just incase anyone missed the poor man in the headlights. It's most unedifying. Surely there should be a limit, time wise, with any allegations no older than five years for anything concerning adults. I don't see how these old cases can be investigated with any reasonable chance of getting to the truth after too long. We must stop this madness. Money is, I am sure, at the bottom of most of these allegations. And we have to take into account that years ago, attitudes were different and behaviour such as this wasn't considered assault. When I used to travel on the tube, I had several situations where I was 'groped' and pressed up against in a packed compartment of standing room only. You had to grow a thicker skin and get a sense of humour and aim for a shin if possible. It was loathsome but hardly assault. i was always slightly shocked that anyone would be so brazen in such a public place. But i would rather put up with these things than be like we are today, vilifying and emasculining men. We've gone far enough along that path already.

"In Australia, though, abuse can be quite mild, for example abusing a footballer by shouting that he or she is too slow or can’t kick or whatever"
John Vernau

I've noticed that. In British media publications when they refer to "racial abuse" what they mean is that someone called someone else an impolite name, which I suppose is verbal abuse but it sounds strange to me.

Anyway, now that new accusations of sexual harassment or assault are coming out nearly every day, it does make me think that anyone with a grudge could try and smear someone they have a grudge against. There should be some consequence for making a false accusation.
But I still think that good has come from this. The accusations against Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey and Bill O'Reilly seem very credible (and also actor Corey Feldman who talked about having been molested as a child actor several years ago but didn't want to name the perpetrator)
I think it is because they were such serial predators that lots of people knew the truth and that's why they fell so quickly. They would not have stopped their predatory behavior if the first brave person had not come forward.

It has also been very illuminating to hear from the men that Kevin Spacey victimized. All of them said they didn't say anything publicly before because they were afraid they wouldn't be believed. Well, that should help us understand the women that haven't come forward immediately.

David Taylor, that's a funny one. I don't think I will need to use it but just in case....

Personally. I prefer to know my daughters and their colleagues can walk to work without being harassed by groups of males, teens onwards. A hand on the knee while having a drink in a work environment is much easier to deal with. I'd rather that than the other.

Basically while much speculation is going on in the news and debates, the ordinary working class female and her daily worries, are overlooked for much more politcal reasons, in my opinion. No one wants to go there.
If you are older like me you can see how differently we treated the young, me, my daughters, until about the 80's, worse for grandchildren.
Society will regret and look back on this era with sadness, I'm sure.
It's not the young, it's the adults who have imposed this change, without thinking of the consequences of exposing young minds before they are ready.
While the answer is to keep educating and not prevent it, we aren't near the answer are we, any time soon, as they discuss the sexual assaults in school, exclude 5 and 12 year olds, for this behaviour, then they aren't looking at the real culprit.
Never have young children been exposed to so much. The answer is there.

Elaine Quraishi .
The best way to stop someone staring at you , is to ask them the question that is used in the Pubs in Glasgow to deter such poor behaviour , which is " Am I wearing something of yours ? " .

I'm not sure how you can take 'speculation' out of news programmes. I mean, most issues have both supporters and critics, and both sides will wish to air their views in terms of outcomes. For those who are interested in politics, an in-depth debate is probably required. For those not interested, they can switch off or change channels.

As to the questions in your final paragraph, I have no idea. But my question was actually about who will install the changes you seek and how will it be done.

Elaine Quraishi
Thanks for your interest. The report (‘Changing the Course’ on humanrights.gov.au) differentiates only between sexual harassment and sexual assault, the latter presumably involving criminal behaviour. I was attempting to use a term to cover the two; ‘abuse’ wasn’t a good choice and I apologise. In Australia, though, abuse can be quite mild, for example abusing a footballer by shouting that he or she is too slow or can’t kick or whatever.

At any rate the media story evaporated after about 24 hours, partly, I think, because it was revealed that the percentages were calculated from the proportion of returned questionnaires, and the return rate was low—I forget the actual figure. At the University my youngest son attends the (female) vice-chancellor emailed all students to the effect that they shouldn’t be concerned, it’s a media beat-up. Most universities are, I think, trying to address the issue in some way.

I've just about choked on my cornflakes reading this headline...*STOP letting teenage thugs off with a slap on the wrist: Britain's top police chief says young offenders are ‘simply not fearful’ of the courts and must be jailed earlier and for longer* !!!!!!!!!!!

From the commander of a London police force who withdrew police from the streets during riots to prevent anyone getting hurt !! i.e.rioters....

If it were, it would happen one of two ways: either men would impose it on women or women would impose it on themselves.

But women will not impose it on themselves as long as they believe that men are capable of controlling themselves, which the vast majority of women believe.

Women are not going to take ALL the responsibility on themselves for appropriate sexual behavior if it means doing something as oppressive as wearing a veil. When France banned the veil only about 2% of French Muslim women were even wearing one, which suggests that when the cultural expectation to wear one is removed women will choose NOT to wear it. Because it's oppressive and it is men that have imposed it on women, not the other way around.

And unless we start arranging marriages, women will continue to want men to see their face as much as men will want to see it.

The ‘sexual abuse’ was quite widely defined and included being looked at in an unwanted way.
Posted by: John Vernau | 08 November 2017 at 09:09 PM

I was curious to know if Australians are just an odd bunch or whether this might actually be true.
So, in my short search I found a page on the Australian Human Rights Commission website. It said:

Examples of sexually harassing behaviour include:
unwelcome touching;
staring or leering;
sexually explicit pictures or posters;
unwanted invitations to go out on dates;
requests for sex;
intrusive questions about a person’s private life or body;
unnecessary familiarity, such as deliberately brushing up against a person;
insults or taunts based on sex;
sexually explicit physical contact; and
sexually explicit emails or SMS text messages
(last update was November 2003)

What you seem to be referring to is "sexual harassment"
And everything in that list should be pretty easy to define. The only one that may not be is "staring or leering". That could be misinterpreted but if someone complains that you are "staring or leering" and you didn't think you were, then the easy thing to do is just say sorry, I didn't mean to stare, and then stop.

It's true that Mr Bunker professes no religion as such, but what he fails to acknowledge even to himself is, just like the rest of us, all that he really knows is that he doesn't know, so he is an agnostic who (chooses to) believe(s) that no universal creator exists. His belief lies exclusively in the blind faith he places in his own unique brand of Bunker -centric Godless scepticism and he sometimes reinforces that belief with quotes of his own, often from the most unlikeliest of sources, Edward Feser and Thomas Crammer to name but two.

Alan Thomas
No, I'm not hoping for news that is limited in content and duration.
Although I think there is something to be said, for not having to fill hours of news with speculation, which although does it's damage, is often a non story, but can seem that speculation is almost a given, when it's not. fRom those with their own agendas.
I would certainly, if I was a female in charge of news have covered the removal of Sarah Champion to the back benches and the lack of in depth interest at the re-twittering of another female MP. that the usual hot on the trail journalists would have explored a bit more, but seem to have let go like a hot potato.
I do wonder just how our young are being educated at home on how perceiving works.
I'm pretty shocked that a whole generation of young have been allowed, encouraged even, by adults and schools who have followed like sheep and exposed them to the internet and created a lot of problems for society and extra work for the police that common sense would tell you they are not mature enough to be exposed to and nor is it right morally.

That you can set the "lowest bar" in Parliament but it's like papering over a great big
chasm that is going on in the underbelly of society.
It all sounds very good and PC, but a whole generation are being,"educated" by film ,telly, internet porn etc, that makes a hand on the knee, very tame.
What do you think happens when the schools and government supply the less well off with computers for school use?
When it goes into a less well off household...the protections set up automatically. do you think those computers will be just left for the children. Or the adults will want to use them and take the protection off?

Martin: You post an extraordinary number of comments here condemning Corbyn; indeed anyone who didn't know better could be forgiven for thinking that Corbyn is the Prime Minister, such is your obession with him. Also you complain a lot about immigration, but seem oblivious to the fact that the Tories and Corbyn's Blairite predecessors in New Labour presided over a truly massive rise in immigration - and further exacerbated the problem by instigating a number of revolutionary wars around the globe. Granted Corbyn is a liberal on immigration - but then so are most of his critics both in his own party and in the Tories and the corporate media. And their pro-war agenda greatly increases the flow of migrants - not just from war-torn regions.

Tallk is indeed cheap - which is why anyone who takes the pseudo-patriotic patter of modern Tory Neocons and anti-Corbyn Blairites at face value, would be very well advised to look at the end result of these folks' actual policies when in office.

If so, exactly how would that be achieved in this age of mass media and 24/7 output? Clearly some other countries - and some rather nasty political movements waiting in the wings in the hope of securing such powers - have adopted such forms of control of their citizens, should we follow suit?

I have noticed that one of the RT:s headline has an interesting usage of the word ’cross’.

’What do you get if you cross a Mail columnist & an Islamist? A solution to sex pests, apparently’

(RT: Published: 7 Nov, 2017 12:53, edited 8 Nov, 2017 07:21)

I checked several dictionaries and only found that ’cross’ was used for animals and plants. I wrote yesterday (09:11 - 8 nov. 2017) and asked RTUK news (Twitter) whether this was a typical usage of the word of RT or not:

”Is it a typical usage of RT to use the word ’cross’ for human beings? Or is this a journalist’s view on the dehumanising of mankind?”

But they haven’t answered yet.

However, it is alarming that so many people misrepresent Mr Hitchens text and its headline - RT writes in the same article under a photograph:

Even I, as an English learner, can understand that the word ’should’ is a totally wrong word for describing the point of the text that Mr Hitchens has carefully written.

One of the most important points of the article is a ’warning’ for us, both male and female, that if we do not respect and trust one another we would destroy freedom in our society.

But of course the respect and trust among us have to be protected and nurtured by law, not by ’squawking’.

As some of us, who followed Twitter yesterday afternoon, witnessed that if someone crossed the line, then we *should’ react against the ’assault’ lawfully and speedy.

After reading this article and all nonsense criticism against it, I have learned more of the significance of the Rule of law & the presumption of innocence that give us freedom we can enjoy now, but we might be losing.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.